“Hillary Clinton told The New York Times recently, ‘I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market… You try to find common ground, insofar as possible. But if you really believe you have to manage the economy, you have to stake a lot of your presidency on it.’ Notice that she equates government power and market power. That is absurd. ‘Power’ in a free market means success at creating goods and services that your fellow human beings voluntarily choose to buy. Government power is force: the ability to fine and imprison people. Politicians who talk about managing the economy ignore the fact that, strictly speaking, there is no economy. There are only people producing, buying and selling goods and services. Keep that in mind, and one realizes that government action more often than not interferes with the productive activities that benefit everyone… The economy is far too complex for any president- no matter how smart- to manage. How can politicians and bureaucrats possibly know what hundreds of millions of individuals know, want and aspire to? How can government employees fathom what trade-offs to make in a world of scarce resources? They can’t. That’s why free people are more prosperous than unfree people. Presidential candidates should promise to keep their hands off the economy.” – John Stossel

“The goal of the ‘liberals’ – as it emerges from the record of the past decades- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli.” – Ayn Rand

“Those who are quick to say that the traditional family is nearing extinction would be wise to check out the latest report from the Census Bureau. According to the most recent data, a majority of American children (70%) live in two-parent homes and the vast majority (90%) of those live with both of their biological parents. This means that of all American children, 63% are living with both their biological parents (60% married biological parents, 3% cohabiting biological parents). The other bit of good news is that the intact married family is getting stronger among Asian-Americans, where the proportion increased significantly between 2001 and 2004, from 76.4% to 80.5%- making the strongest family ethnic group even stronger yet. The rest of the news is not as optimistic. For all American children in all ethnic groups, there has been a slight decrease (1.4%) between 2001 and 2004 in the proportion living in the married, intact family. White American children are the second strongest group, after Asian-Americans, with 65.9% (down from 67.1%) living with their married, biological parents. Hispanics are next at 57.1 % (down from 58.2%) and African Americans last at 28.2 % (down from 29%).” – Tony Perkins

“The massively cruel and ruinous communistic experiment of the Soviet Empire would not have been necessary if philosophers and intellectuals had not ignored a basic truth about human nature: Human beings, as a derivative of the instinct to survive, are innately driven to act in their own self interest. Notwithstanding propaganda, conditioning or brute force, any government or institution which runs head on against the grain of this basic human drive is doomed to fail. We seem not to have learned a basic lesson of history: Capitalism harnesses human self interest; socialism exhausts itself trying to kill it. The bureaucrats, who seize and dole out other people’s assets, initially see themselves as humanitarians. Eventually, they conclude they are indeed superior to others, and treat themselves accordingly. They make laws to which they are not subject; they vote themselves and their wards privileges and benefits. Then, they no longer serve- they rule a nation of the government, by the government and for the government.” – Linda Bowles

“Which of these three options is more likely to prevent further murderous rampages: a) making universities closed campuses and increasing the police presence on campus (as the president of [Northern Illinois University] has promised to do); b) making guns much harder to obtain; or c) enabling specially trained students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus? Because political correctness has replaced wisdom at nearly all universities, colleges are considering options a and b. But the only thing the first option will accomplish is to reduce the quality of university life and render the campus a larger version of the contemporary airport. And the second option will have no effect whatsoever since whoever wishes to commit murder will be able to obtain guns illegally. But if would-be murderers know that anywhere they go to kill students, there is a real likelihood that one or two students will shoot them first, and if in fact some would-be murderer is killed before he can murder any, or at least many, students, we will see far fewer such attempts made. Even though many of these murderers end up killing themselves, they don’t want to die until they have first murdered as many students and teachers as possible. Of course, there is virtually no chance that the uniformly left-thinking individuals who run our universities will ever consider this option. To do so would mean abandoning what is essentially a religious-like conviction that guns are immoral rather than the people who use them immorally.” – Dennis Prager